Corpus: 543,223 opinions ·
3,177 judges ·
newest 2026-06-23 · expanding
Coverage ↗
Opinion
govinfo:USCOURTS-tnwd-2_23-cv-02453-12
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
KENNETH MERRITT,
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
)
)
)
v. ) No. 2:23-cv-02453-SHM-tmp
)
)
)
)
)
WIPRO LIMITED,
Defendant.
ORDER DISMISSING IN PART AND DENYING AS MOOT IN PART MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION
Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Kenneth Merritt’s
October 22, 2025 Motion for Reconsideration of (1) the Court’s
June 30, 2025 Order (ECF No. 118) dismissing Plaintiff’s claims
with prejudice and (2) the Court’s October 20, 2025 Order (ECF
No. 132) denying Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis on appeal. (ECF No. 133). For the reasons that follow,
Plaintiff’s Motion is (1) DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction
with respect to the Court’s Order dismissing Plaintiff’s claims
and (2) DENIED AS MOOT with respect to the Court’s Order
denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
I. Background
On June 10, 2025, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and
Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s case be dismissed
Case 2:23-cv-02453-SHM-tmp Document 137 Filed 04/16/26 Page 1 of 9
PageID <pageID>
2
with prejudice as a sanction for noncompliance with court
orders. (ECF No. 101). Neither party filed objections to the
Report. (ECF No. 118 at 1-2.) On June 30, 2025, the Court
entered an Order adopting the Report and dismissing the case
with prejudice. (ECF No. 118.) Judgment was entered on June 30,
2025. (ECF No. 119.)
On July 8, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Alter or
Amend Judgment. (ECF No. 120.) On August 13, 2025, the Court
denied the Motion. (ECF No. 126.)
On September 4, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal
and a Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) on
Appeal. (ECF Nos. 127-28.) The Notice of Appeal states that
Plaintiff appeals: (1) the Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to
Alter or Amend Judgment (ECF No. 126), (2) the Judgment of
Dismissal with Prejudice (ECF No. 118-120), and (3) all
underlying adverse orders, rulings, and opinions leading to
dismissal. (ECF No. 127.) The appeal was docketed as 25-5783 on
September 5, 2025. (ECF No. 129.) The appeal remains pending.
On September 5, 2025, the Clerk’s Office informed
Plaintiff he had submitted his in forma pauperis application
using the incorrect form. (ECF No. 133 at 2.) On September 7,
2025, Plaintiff resubmitted the application using the correct
form, but failed to sign the form. (ECF No. 130.) On September
8, 2025, the Clerk’s Office issued a deficiency notice,
Case 2:23-cv-02453-SHM-tmp Document 137 Filed 04/16/26 Page 2 of 9
PageID <pageID>
3
advising Plaintiff that the application lacked a signature and
giving Plaintiff one business day to rectify the error. (ECF
No. 131.) More than a month passed during which Plaintiff
failed to rectify the filing deficiency. On October 20, 2025,
the Court entered an Order denying Plaintiff’s Motions (ECF
Nos. 128, 130) to Proceed in Forma Pauperis on Appeal for
failure to comply with Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1). (ECF No. 132.)
On October 22, 2025, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion
for Reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 59(e) and 60(b), asking this Court to reconsider: (1)
its June 30, 2025 Order dismissing Plaintiff’s claims with
prejudice and (2) its October 20, 2025 Order denying
Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
(ECF No. 133 at 1.)
II. Standard of Review
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), a court may
alter or amend its judgment because of an intervening change in
the controlling law, newly discovered evidence, to correct a
clear error of law, or to prevent a manifest injustice. Betts v.
Costco Wholesale Corp., 558 F.3d 461, 474 (6th Cir. 2009)
(internal quotation marks omitted). The purpose of Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 59(e) is to allow a district court to correct
its own mistakes. White v. New Hampshire Dep’t of Emp’t Sec.,
Case 2:23-cv-02453-SHM-tmp Document 137 Filed 04/16/26 Page 3 of 9
PageID <pageID>
4
455 U.S. 445, 450 (1982). Reconsideration under Rule 59(e) “is
not intended to relitigate matters already decided by the Court.”
Windsor v. A Fed. Exec. Agency, 614 F. Supp. 1255, 1264 (M.D.
Tenn. 1983), aff’d, 767 F.2d 923 (6th Cir. 1985).
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), a district
court is authorized to grant relief “from a final judgment,
order, or proceeding” on the grounds of (1) mistake,
inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly
discovered evidence; (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or
misconduct; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been
satisfied, released or discharged; or (6) “any other reason that
justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Claims of legal error
are properly considered under Rule 60(b)(1) as a type of mistake.
See Braggs v. Perez, 42 F. App’x 678, 680 (6th Cir. 2002).
“Relief under Rule 60(b) is circumscribed by public policy
favoring finality of judgments and termination of litigation.”
Blue Diamond Coal Co. v. Trs. of UMWA Combined Benefit Fund, 249
F.3d 519, 524 (6th Cir. 2001). Rule 60(b) is not intended to
allow relief from judgment merely because a plaintiff is unhappy
with the outcome. See Jinks v. AlliedSignal, Inc., 250 F.3d
381, 385 (6th Cir. 2001).
Case 2:23-cv-02453-SHM-tmp Document 137 Filed 04/16/26 Page 4 of 9
PageID <pageID>
5
III. Analysis
A. Reconsideration of Order Dismissing Case with
Prejudice
Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider its June 30, 2025
Order dismissing Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice, citing
clear error of fact and law and manifest injustice. (ECF No.
133 at 3-4.) Plaintiff argues that the Court erred in finding
Plaintiff non-compliant with discovery obligations and Court
orders despite a clear record of compliance. (ECF No. 133 at
3.) Plaintiff also argues that, before resorting to the severe
sanction of dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37,
the Court failed to (1) make a finding of willfulness, bad
faith and (2) consider lesser sanctions, as required by
Regional Refuse Sys., Inc. v. Inland Reclamation Co., 842 F.2d
150, 154 (6th Cir. 1988).1 (ECF No. 133 at 3.)
The Court does not have jurisdiction to consider
Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Order
dismissing his case with prejudice. (ECF No. 118.) Plaintiff
has appealed the Order to the Sixth Circuit. (ECF No. 127.)
Filing a notice of appeal divests a district court of
jurisdiction over the order being appealed. See Williamson v.
Recovery Ltd. P’ship, 731 F.3d 608, 626 (6th Cir. 2013) (“The
1 Not discernibly related to the Order that Plaintiff asks the Court
to reconsider, Plaintiff also vaguely alleges unequal treatment as a
pro se litigant and due process violations. (ECF No. 133 at 3-4.)
Case 2:23-cv-02453-SHM-tmp Document 137 Filed 04/16/26 Page 5 of 9
PageID <pageID>
6
filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional
significance—it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals
and divests the district court of its control over those
aspects of the case involved in the appeal.”) (quoting Griggs
v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982).
B. Reconsideration of Order Denying In Forma Pauperis
Status on Appeal
Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider its October 20,
2025 Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In
Forma Pauperis, citing mistake and manifest injustice. (ECF No.
133 at 2.) Plaintiff claims that the form he submitted to the
Clerk’s Office on September 7, 2025 was signed and that the
representation that it was not signed was due to clerical error
and not Plaintiff’s failure. (ECF No. 133 at 2.) Plaintiff
argues that “[d]enying IFP based on administrative lapse works
manifest injustice[.]” (ECF No. 133 at 2.) Although Plaintiff
attaches to his Motion a copy of the email he sent to the
Clerk’s Office on September 7, 2025 re-submitting his allegedly
signed in forma pauperis application, he does not provide a
copy of the IFP application attached to that email to prove
that the form was signed. (ECF No. 133-1.)
Nonetheless, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of the
Court’s Order denying in forma pauperis status on appeal is
Case 2:23-cv-02453-SHM-tmp Document 137 Filed 04/16/26 Page 6 of 9
PageID <pageID>
7
moot because it is procedurally improper, and Plaintiff has a
procedurally proper application to proceed in forma pauperis
pending in the Sixth Circuit.
Plaintiff’s “Motion for Reconsideration” of the Court’s
denial of his Motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is
procedurally inappropriate. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
24(a)(5) provides that, if the district court denies a party
leave to appeal in forma pauperis, “[a] party may file a motion
to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis in the court of appeals
within 30 days” after the denial. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5). The
Advisory Committee Notes clarify that “[Rule 24(a)(5)]
establishes a subsequent motion in the court of appeals . . .
as the proper procedure for calling in question the correctness
of the action of the district court.” Fed. R. App. P. 24
Advisory Committee Notes; see Callihan v. Schneider, 178 F.3d
800, 804-03 (6th Cir. 1999) (holding that if a district court
denies a party leave to appeal in forma pauperis, party must
either pay the filing fee or may file an in forma pauperis
application in the court of appeals within thirty days of the
denial).
Plaintiff was informed of this procedure. On October 22,
2025, the Sixth Circuit issued a Ruling Letter informing
Plaintiff that, given this Court’s denial of his in forma
pauperis application, Plaintiff was responsible for either
Case 2:23-cv-02453-SHM-tmp Document 137 Filed 04/16/26 Page 7 of 9
PageID <pageID>
8
paying the appellate filing fee to the district court or filing
a renewed motion for pauper status in the Sixth Circuit by
November 20, 2025. Ruling Letter, Merritt v. Wipro Ltd., No.
25-5783, (6th Cir. Sept. 5, 2025), ECF No. 6.
Despite the appellate court’s instructions, the same day
Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration of the
Court’s Order denying Plaintiff’s IFP application. (ECF No. 133
at 1.)
Plaintiff’s Motion in this Court “calling in question the
correctness” of the Court’s denial of Plaintiff’s IFP
application is procedurally improper.
2 The proper method and
venue for Plaintiff to seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis
on appeal after this Court’s denial of his application is by
renewed motion in the Sixth Circuit. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5).
And Plaintiff has in fact filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis in that court. Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis,
Merritt, No. 25-5783, ECF No. 7. The application in the Sixth
2 For this reason, the Court ought not have ruled on Plaintiff’s renewed
Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis on Appeal filed January 6,
2026, while both the Motion for Reconsideration and Plaintiff’s Sixth
Circuit in forma pauperis application were pending. (ECF No. 135.) Insofar
as the essence of Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is that his
application ought not have been denied on the basis of procedural defects,
Plaintiff received a decision on the merits of his renewed application on
January 13, 2026. The Motion was denied on January 13, 2026 for failure to
demonstrate an inability to pay fees and costs. (ECF No. 136.) Thus, even
if the Court could reconsider its Order, reconsideration would not alter
the outcome.
Case 2:23-cv-02453-SHM-tmp Document 137 Filed 04/16/26 Page 8 of 9
PageID <pageID>
9
Circuit remains pending. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration
is moot.
IV. Conclusion
Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration is DISMISSED in
part and DENIED AS MOOT in part. Defendant’s Motion for
Reconsideration is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction with
respect to the Court’s June 30, 2025 Order dismissing
Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice. Defendant’s Motion for
Reconsideration is DENIED AS MOOT with respect to the Court’s
October 20, 2025 Order denying Plaintiff’s application to
proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
SO ORDERED this 16th day of April, 2026.
/s/ Samuel H. Mays, Jr.Saays, Jr.
SAMUEL H. MAYS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:23-cv-02453-SHM-tmp Document 137 Filed 04/16/26 Page 9 of 9
PageID <pageID>